Minchin does his party no favours

How awful for Tony Abbott. How excruciating. How embarrassing. Having distanced himself from his climate change "is absolute crap" comments for over a year, he was starting to make headway shaping himself as a man whose concern for climate change was matched by his commitment to direct action on emissions-reducing technologies.

How awful for Tony Abbott. How excruciating. How embarrassing. Having distanced himself from his climate change "is absolute crap" comments for over a year, he was starting to make headway shaping himself as a man whose concern for climate change was matched by his commitment to direct action on emissions-reducing technologies.

This week's opinion polls showed voter dislike of the government's proposed carbon tax, and showed the Opposition gaining crucial ground. The government was polling at its lowest level on record, and pundits attributed the crash to Gillard's new carbon tax. Tony Abbott must have been feeling pretty good.

But now Nick Minchin, one the Liberal party's most senior movers and shakers has spoken out on climate change, reiterating his long-held position that climate change does not exist at all.

Minchin is retiring in July, taking time to spend with his family. And his comments, coming just as the Coalition gained ground on the issue of climate change are not helpful.

He lambasts Ross Garnaut, the Labor-appointed economist charged with coming up with a carbon dioxide trading scheme, as being "not a climate scientist". Did someone mention pots, kettles and the colour black?

Garnaut has about as much climate science research experience as the good senator. Each man is entitled to his view, but for Minchin to dismiss Garnaut's view because of a lack of professional qualifications is simply exposing himself to the same criticism.

Within 15 minutes of the story being posted on ABC News online, already several commenters had pointed out this flaw in his logic.

"Last time I checked Nick Minchin wasn't a climate scientist," said 'Alistair'.

Minchin also risks driving the public conversation on climate change away from what to do about the problem - a tax or a trading scheme or direct action - and back to whether or not climate change is occurring.

Politically speaking this does his party no favours.

The majority of Australians believe that climate change is real and needs to be addressed. Kevin Rudd's popularity was closely aligned to his action - or inaction - on this issue. Tony Abbott has grasped this concept and has furthered his political mileage by agreeing that it needs to be addressed, and differing only on the manner in which it should be addressed.

A return to the is-it-happening-or-not debate will distract attention away from Abbott's campaign to show that his policy is the better choice.

Abbott will inevitably face questioning from the media about disunity within his party. And with Abbott's past comments still haunting him, he will be confronted with questions about and the true level of acceptance of the problem of climate change within the Liberals. He will be forced, again, to convince people that he genuinely has been convinced that climate change is occurring.

The Republican Party in the US has gained some political momentum by not accepting the science of climate change. In the US, there are sufficient numbers of people who are similarly unconvinced for this to be a force in assisting the Republican defeat of the climate bill designed to address climate change, and for the subsequent election of a Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

However, at the risk of stating the obvious, Australia is not the US.

Lowy Polls, which have looked at Australian attitudes on climate change across the last four years, show that 86 per cent of Australian are concerned about climate change. Just 13 per cent do not think that climate change is real enough of a problem to warrant any action.

Minchin is appealing to a small portion of the Australian electorate with his comments. The majority of the electorate will see them as ill-informed or irrelevant and this will reflect poorly on the party. Abbott's hard work positioning the Liberals as the environmentally responsible yet low taxing party could have been undone with a single interview.

Actions

Share

Comments (40)

graham godon thomas :

23 Mar 2011 12:26:59pm

for a start they are having the wrong discussion,we cannot stop a climate changing because the causes are variable, and unprdictable so what we should be discussion is how we adapt and given that different places for eg Griffith is in a different climate zone to Canada there has to be different adaptations after all if it gets warmer the Canadians will use less energy to keep warm so that could help reduce CO2 output whilst it may well get wetter at Griffith and save the Murray naturally, to suggest that the earth is a fixed system and we can fix this into an ideal is simply mad.may has well pay homage at Stonehenge it will be just as useful as a carbon tax. the discussion is a closed one bcause those in charge are afraid of having their limited knowledge exposed. there can be no scepticism about climates changing they always will be, there is only scepticism that a tax can alter the course of the earth dynamic systems. as an evolutionist one sees the whole debate as very shallow in deed. without the total emancipation of all women so they can reduce the amount of children born into sufferring already I cannot see what the debate is achieving, other than bing a means to confuse the public and divide politics. the simple equation is 10% of fifty is still less that 10% of 80 and unless we grasp that there is no real debate about how an effect upon earths dynamnic systems is actually relevent to the prognosis. if it is about humanitarianism then the whole debate is in the wrong hands, the tax is theft from those who work hard and sacrifice the most to those who sacrifice the least and damand the most. let us at some time take the debate away from paid interest groups becuase it cannot said to be impartial nor have these the depth to take it into the next level principled in how w deal with the human environment by beginining a discussion on the universal emancipation of women as a means of doing what is wanted at the same time doing what is needed reducing the need to produce. after all my friends make the goal amenable with better human nature and you will get Coopracy we aim for a reduction in births and a thirty hour week by say 2050 and your imagined concerns turn into a delightful cause, after all it is only a matter of evolution of human culture freeing women from servitude freeing men from emasculation and we begin to recreate the place so we are as near as possible in a symbiotic relationship with earth I am sure you all agree, end the debate about money make it about people in nature, graham

mjinga :

14 Mar 2011 6:13:54pm

The world heats up, it cools down. Has done for 4 billion years without our help, and will do again. Since we are coming out of a cold period it is not surprising that we are heating up. In due course the self-correction mechanism will kick in, as it always has, and we will start heading for the next Ice Age.

dave :

15 Mar 2011 10:30:47am

Its a bit more complex than that. We were heading for another ice age, but that was reversed due to increase production of CO2 during the industrial revolution. Lucky were aren't heading for an ice age, but not so good to over heat the planet either.

mjinga :

15 Mar 2011 6:39:28pm

It always reverses sooner or later - depending on how close to or far from the sun we are. Scotland was once a desert. Australia was once all rain forest. I have seen ice drag marks on rocks in the Sahara not far from petroglyphs of hippo and giraffe. I have drilled 25 metres of glacial till just north of Kalgoorlie.

Dave W :

24 Mar 2011 6:14:04pm

You seem to have a very good understanding that the world is an ever changing thing. If you go onto the weather sites and check on ocean temps around Australia you will see that our oceans are between 1 to 3 degrees hotter than normal.This does not mean that the planet will heat though, what it does mean is the opposite it will cool due to more evaporation, more cloud cover, more precipitation less sunshine lots more cyclones and big thunderstorms and extreme weather events, (not due to co2 emmitions directly), research has shown our oceans PH levels are now more acid than alkaline and less salinity,this could be a contributing factor of ocean temp variance around the world, maybe it time we should stop polluting it for the sake of the wallets of the super rich before we prematurely create the next ice age. While we are on the subject of change has anybody looked at the fact the magnetic north pole is now 40 kilometers closer to siberia than it was ten years ago because a pole shift(even a gradual one) will cause climate change.experts say siberia will be the north pole within fifty years or sooner. Just a thought we need to consider.

Dave W :

25 Mar 2011 10:44:38am

The issue of putting a price on co2 is ridiculous. We breathe it out every single day and plants breathe it in.Plankton in the ocean lives on co2 and gives off vital o2.Lightning strikes occur thousands of times a day around the world and burn up the co2 as well.It is fact that small trees use more co2 than old growth.The atmosphere has the ability to cope with co2 BUT IT DOES NOT have the ability to cope with Excess Methane emitted from livestock. Our oceans do not have the ability to process Raw sewerage, Pesticides, Herbicides, Bio chemical waste, Animal waste, Toxic waste, Nuclear waste, Chemical spills, Oil spills, Garbage or Heavy metals that are dumped out there. Our oceans are not sustainable, because Asia still has illegal shark fining, whaling and the killing of dolphins and other species for food, going on around the world. The oceans are a balance and a very delicate one at that. If you take the top predators out of the oceans the Plankton feeding fish numbers increase. The fish would recover only to decimate plankton levels, where we, get our air from, this is already occurring. Hundreds of thousands of sharks are finned weekly and they are dumped back in the water ALIVE without the ability to swim and they suffer a very painful drowning. Steve Irwin was a National Hero who spent his life trying to stomp this kind of crap out and conserve, what we as the human race have systematically destroyed over the last 200 years.Our species has done more damage to this planet in this short time than the previous ten thousand years of mans existence. The extinction of hundreds of species just since I was born in 1971 is absolutely disgusting. We have become the biggest plague the planet has ever known, you can’t just think putting a price on carbon will fix the problems, big business will still produce the same amount, they will just pass the price on to the consumer and use the words "infrastructure upgrade!" to justify it. For an oil company that makes millions of dollars per day to be fined only a few hundred thousand for an accidental spill or releasing of toxic by-products into the environment, it is only good business to keep doing so. No matter what the cost to the environment is, big business will always put profit first. Labor went to the last poll with the statement that carbon tax and the ETS would be off the table whilst Julia Gillard was PM and they scraped in on a preference vote. I have No doubt in my mind that if they had gone to the polls with Carbon tax and the ETS as a major Labor policy, Tony Abbott would now be the PM. I have voted ALP for 22 years and I have to say I am disgusted at the way the people of this country have been misled and the Pure Arrogance of Gillard and Swan to not listen to the public opinion regarding this issue. Putting a price on carbon is only another revenue raiser and to talk of tax cuts as a means to compensate the

Hawkeye :

12 Mar 2011 8:43:18pm

If Nick Minchin's comments are so awful, how awful is the Federal Government in using lies to trick the Australian voter into accepting a carbon tax.

Lie number one: We have to do this to save the world. Utter nonsense. Stopping all emissions in Australia would make no measurable difference to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is less than 4 parts in 10,000. Of this minute amount, 97% is natural, that is, nothing to do with mankind. Of the remaining miniscule 3% of the 4 parts in 10,000, Australia's contribution may be about one and one half percent.

The Government should own up to the fact that they simply want to take more of our money off us to spend as they think fit. Meanwhile our standard of living is to be reduced because we will not be able to drive our car as far as we wish, nor fly in aeroplanes as often as we may like and we had better turn off the TV and other appliances so that our electricity bill is manageable.

Lie number two: Carbon is a pollutant. Absolutely not. Of the 92 common chemical elements in the Universe, carbon is the fourth most abundant. Call that pollution? Complex carbon molecules occur in ALL living cells. It is essential for photosynthesis, that is, without CO2 there would be NO plant growth and we would all die of starvation.

Lie number three: Australian's are amongst the worst polluters in the world. A complete distortion of the facts. Yes, on a per capita basis Australians produce more CO2 than most nations just as on a per capita basis we have more kangaroos than any other nation. This is entirely due to Australia having one of the lowest population densities in the world. But this is irrelevant because the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does not depend on per capita emissions but on emission per square kilometre. On that basis Australia is amongst the lowest emitters in the world and that is the basis that matters. One person per square kilometre emitting 1,000,000 tons of CO2 per capita produces exactly the same concentration change as 1,000 persons per square kilometre emitting 1,000 tons of CO2 per capita.

Lie number four: Climate change is spoken of as if it has only happened in the last century or so. Again completely false. Our climate data and records are only about 150 years in time span but the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years, that is, our experience of climate is only one part in 30 million. We have no idea what is normal for the Earth's climate. However the geological record suggests that the climate has always changed and sometimes quite dramatically. We simply do not know whether or not the current changes are part of the normal cycle for the Earth.

However this dishonesty is probably befitting of a Prime Minister who comes into Government on the promise of no carbon tax.

Hawkeye :

Thank you Lachlan for your response. With vicious attacks like this it would be very foolish of me to reveal my name and compromise the careers of my family and colleagues.

As for the abundance of carbon, try removing the carbon atoms from your body and your food and see what you have left.

Probably if you look in Wikipedia you may learn that burning coal produces mainly nitrogen, which forms 78% of the atmosphere and is an essential part of nitrogen fertilisers used to grow our food, and water vapour, the so called pollution shown is discharge from power station cooling towers, again essential for life, and CO2 which as I stated is essential for photosynthesis.

dave :

dave :

15 Mar 2011 10:25:00am

Hawkeye,You might need to revise you statment. The main chemical consituent of AIR is nitrogen.

Burning coal produces mainly CO2 as coal is a hydrocarbon - meaning the main consituents of a hydrocarbon are carbon and hydrogen atoms in a hydrocarbon chain. The nitogen comes from the air that the coal burns in to produce NOxs which are a pollutant not fertiliser.The hydrogen combines with oxygen to produce water and other compounds - some are pollutants. The carbon combines with oxygen to produce CO2 and CO both pollutants.

David Arthur :

A quick google search suggests that I have not directly addressed you, personally, with an explanation of how and why anthropogenic CO2 emissions are affecting the climate.

Historic fossil fuel use and cement production data (Oak Ridge National (US) Laboratory Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) shows sufficient CO2 emission from 1800 to raise atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 430 ppm. Dissolution of CO2 in oceans has limited atmospheric CO2 to about 390 ppm, and decreased ocean pH. This observation contextualises your paragraph headed "Lie number one:". It is clear from the above that it is YOU, Hawkeye, who is misrepresenting reality.

This excess atmospheric CO2 is a problem as follows.

Earth's surface is warmed by absorbtion of short wave sunlight. White surfaces, such as ice caps, stay cold by reflecting this sunlight.

The rest of the Earth's surface cools by evaporation of excited water molecules, heat transfer to deeper sea and to polar ice caps and by convection and radiation back into and through the atmosphere. At higher altitudes, where the atmosphere gets less dense, the proportion of energy (heat) transfer by long wave 'thermal' (microwave) radiation increases.

Greenhouse gases such as H2O, CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), CFC's, and ozone (O3) that absorb some longwave wavelengths. When they re-emit this radiation, equal amounts of it are directed back down toward the surface, rather than up away from the surface.

Increasing intensity of downwelling longwave radiation is detected at surface observatories, matching deficits in satellite observation of radiation escaping to space at exactly the same wavelengths. This discrepancy increases with atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Deforestation limits biosequestration of atmospheric CO2 so that reversion to glacial conditions is not presently possible, even when earth's orbital precession minimises intensity of sunlight on Arctic terrestrial icecaps (ie right now).

I look forward to the revision of your position, and trust that your future posts will permit respect for your thinking.

David Arthur :

This follows directly from the necessity to decrease CO2 emissions sufficiently as to avoid dangerous climate change. So, how much do we need to decrease CO2 emissions?

The answer is 100%. Reason is, to avoid ice melting and sea level rise, we need to maintain atmospheric CO2 no greater than 350 ppm (ie the atmospheric CO2 content in the mid-1980's); atmospheric CO2 is currently about 390 ppm.

Not ony Australia, but every other nation on the planet will, sooner or later, cut their CO2 emissions. They will do this by technological transformation, eventually eliminating fossil fuel use from their economies. If we develop it quickly enough, we may be able to sell them some of this technology, because we certainly won't be flogging coal or even LPG. To develop this technology, we need to be an early adopter of the new technology, else we will be simpoly playing catchup, buying the technoplogy and equipment from someone else. And, we'll be an international pariah.

To summarise, your statement fails on grounds of physical science, commerce and diplomacy.

mjinga :

David Arthur :

16 Mar 2011 5:30:20pm

Gday Mjinga,

I don't have the full history, but please bear in mind that earth's climate is a function of many variables.

Here's my potted understanding of climate variability over the last 65 million years, ie since the asteroid that initiated the extinction of most dinosaurs (the only dinosaurs that survived are the ones that evolved into birds). Remember, that collision was the one that most likely blew off vast masses of atmosphere, to leave the earth with the thin atmosphere that it now has.

Zachos, Pagani, Sloan, Thomas, & Billups, review what is known of pre-human climate variability in of "Trends, Rhythms and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to present", Science, 2001, http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES206/readings/Zachos2001.pdf.

This review describes how the Earth has been on a long-term cooling trend for the past 65 million years (Science, vol 292, p 686). Superimposed upon this are oscillations in climate every 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years caused by wobbles in the Earth's orbit.

From about the start of the Pleistocene era, 2.7 million years ago, this cooling trend had proceeded sufficiently for ice sheets to persist over Canada, Siberia and Scandinavia, initially during the during the coldest parts of these oscillations, and increasingly through more and more of the cycle.

The chaotic bifurcation between glacial and interglacial climate states is Peter Ditlevsen’s subject in "Bifurcation structure and noise-assisted transitions in the Pleistocene glacial cycles", accessible from Ditlevsen's page at University of Copenhagen, http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~pditlev/.

William F Ruddiman’s book, “Plows, Plagues and Petroleum – How Humans Took Control of Climate”, is a good introduction for the general reader.

The long cooling trend that Zachos et al describe is attributable to the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere over the last 65 million years. This removal is in turn due to the spread of flowering plants, angiosperms, around the world.

As Frank Berendse and Marten Scheffer's "The angiosperm radiation revisited, an ecological explanation for Darwin's 'abominable mystery' ", Ecology Letters, (2009) 12: 865–872, explains, angiosperms are much quicker-growing than the other major terrestrial vegetation type, gymnosperms. Angiosperms extract nutrients from soil, and CO2 from the atmosphere much more quickly than gymnosperms, and shed soil-enriching litter such as leaves, twigs, seed pods, fruit and the suchlike, at much greater rates than the more parsimonious gymnosperms. Much of this carbon remains in the ever-richer soil, which further favours quick-growing angiosperms over gymnosperms.

That is, the long-term cooling trend has been driven by sequestration of atmospheric CO2 in plant biomass, hence in soils and ocean, due to increased plant productivi

Heath :

Baz :

12 Mar 2011 10:05:42am

You might be amazed at how many people think climate change science has much in common with the king’s news clothes. But the hubris and derision of the believers shuts them up. You can only question the science in a whisper or be labelled a fool. Much is said of the financial backing of the of the doubters, it pales to insignificance when compared to the propaganda machine of governments. People vote with their feet. I don’t see politicians turning of air conditioners in Parliament house or flying on less tax payer funded junkets. People believe what they told if we didn’t know better we would probably think weather was weather.

David Arthur :

Here are some facts. In some circles, they would be referred to as "known knowns". Being facts, they require no belief whatsoever.

Historic fossil fuel use and cement production data (Oak Ridge National (US) Laboratory Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) shows sufficient CO2 emission from 1800 to raise atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 430 ppm. Dissolution of CO2 in oceans has limited atmospheric CO2 to about 390 ppm, and decreased ocean pH. This excess atmospheric CO2 is a problem as follows.

Earth's surface is warmed by absorbtion of short wave sunlight. White surfaces, such as ice caps, stay cold by reflecting this sunlight.

The rest of the Earth's surface cools by evaporation of excited water molecules, heat transfer to deeper sea and to polar ice caps and by convection and radiation back into and through the atmosphere. At higher altitudes, where the atmosphere gets less dense, the proportion of energy (heat) transfer by long wave 'thermal' (microwave) radiation increases.

Greenhouse gases such as H2O, CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), CFC's, and ozone (O3) that absorb some longwave wavelengths. When they re-emit this radiation, equal amounts of it are directed back down toward the surface, rather than up away from the surface.

Increasing intensity of downwelling longwave radiation is detected at surface observatories, matching deficits in satellite observation of radiation escaping to space at exactly the same wavelengths. This discrepancy increases with atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Deforestation limits biosequestration of atmospheric CO2 so that reversion to glacial conditions is not presently possible, even when earth's orbital precession minimises intensity of sunlight on Arctic terrestrial icecaps (ie right now).

I trust this helps contextualise your ridiculous assertions regarding government propaganda machines for you. After all, if government propaganda machines are so much bigger and more powerful than those of Denialist financiers, how come people still smoke?

Michael J :

12 Mar 2011 12:17:46am

This guy was Science minister! A good government should base their policy on the science and not the other way about. He has done harm pushing his ignorant view in the corridors of power so it is good that he is retiring to spend some time with his imagination.

J :

11 Mar 2011 9:04:33pm

And this is the man that orchestrated Turnbull's demise....what an idiot. I was a Liberal voter for the past 21 years but will not support such blatant ignorance. Bring back Turnbull, a leader of conviction and authentic commitment.

David Arthur :

Minchin reckons the world hasn't warmed since 2002, and has been cooling since then.

No, Nick, you're straight out incorrect. In fact, 2010 is the warmest year on the instrumental record, so if the world has been cooling since 2002, then 2010 should be quite a bit cooler than 2002.

It's true that atmospheric temperatures aren't warming as quickly over the last decade as in the two prior decade, but there are two factors to accout for that.

1) Tthere's been more sunlight-reflecting sulfate aerosols (acid rain-causing air pollution) in the atmosphere in this last decade than ever before. China's industrial takeoff is largely powered by high-sulfur Chinese coal, and the global shipping trade delivering raw materials to China, and Chinese goods to the world, is fuelled with high-sulfur Bunker C oil.

2) Heat transfer to the Poles is now driving accelerated icecap melt. Ref: "Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise", Rignot et al, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L05503, doi:10.1029/2011GL046583, 2011: "Notably, the acceleration in ice sheet loss over the last 18 years was 21.9 ± 1 Gt/yr2 for Greenland and 14.5 ± 2 Gt/yr2 for Antarctica, for a combined total of 36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr2. This acceleration is 3 times larger than for mountain glaciers and ice caps (12 ± 6 Gt/yr2). If this trend continues, ice sheets will be the dominant contributor to sea level rise in the 21st century."

Minchin may not see the inundation of the Gold Coast canal estates, but his grandchildren just might.

activevoter ®:

13 Mar 2011 9:01:11am

Well David, you are not quite correct there. 2010 was claimed to be the hottest prior to the all the figures coming in but as far as the instrument record goes 1998 holds the record. And lets clarify instrument record for our viewers eh? That includes around about the last 30 years or so only. In fact it has been warmer in the past hasnt it? But we seem to conveniently forget that. Also as you would be aware man only contributes about 4% of the CO2 and Australia only contributes 1.2% of that. If Australia was shutdown completely and we all lived in mud huts using earwax candles we would cool that planet by .01 Degrees. Yes a whopping one, one hundredth of a degree... hardly worth spending sacrificing a children's future for. Where is the unprecendented warming Dave? It hasn't been happening for over a decade? Co2 not the Big driver of the climate as claimed? Look to the real world not the make believe one.

dave :

Not the last thirty years or so -Last time it was warmer was when dinosaurs were trodding around and CO2 was at a vey high concentration due to intense volcanic eruptions.

Global warming is the reason we aren't a frozen planet. The main driver of global warming is CO2. Methane is one of the top ones too.

This is all very basic science -taught to most year 5s -I don't know why we have to reinvent the wheel to satisfy the ignorance of a few.

We are leaders in the western world and as such should lead by example. We should break into new fields of technology and innovation to deal with climate change - then sell that skill overseas. There is more to gain here than to lose in terms of jobs.

activevoter :

15 Mar 2011 8:55:29pm

Dave, in actual fact you have clearly forgotten about the Medieval Warming Period which was several degrees hotter and from memory there were no dinosaurs around at that time. Also the main driver of global warmer is in fact the sun because without the sun it doesn't matter how much CO2 you have its going to stay cold. And thanks for the 5yr old lesson... but you missed a few salient facts, the vast majority of CO2 warming occurs at less than 150ppm, as CO2 warming is logarithmic, the more CO2 the less effect it has at 380ppm there is not a lot of warming ability left and this is reflected in the IPCC's own report. The real world temperature is still only climbing at .012C per decade which is as it has been for the last thousand years or so. Unprecedented warming? Not really. Outside normal variation No Unprecedented cyclones? No we are at a 30yr low. Unprecedented sea level rise? No our sea level rise is virtually unchanged for the last few thousand years. Unprecedented what? Do humans have some influence on the environment? Of course we do. Can we do better? Of course we can, but dont treat us like twits. If in fact there is a dangerous serious problem then show me in the data, the real world data... unfortunately or fortunately really it is not there. Oh yeah, Where is that tell tale hot spot with the unprecedented warming? Well, its not really there.

David Arthur :

1998 is the hottest year ever? Only acording to Met Office Hadley Centre data, which do a good job of representing most of the world other than the Arctic.

If you want to include the Arctic, then you have to go to either the NOAA (USA) or the NASA GISS (also USA) data. Both of these data sets clearly show that, on average 2010 was the second warmest year on the INSTRUMENTAL record ... which extends back at least to 1900. (The SATELLITE record might be only 30-odd years, get your claim right).

So, the hottest year was 1998. NO!

The hottest year to date has been 2005, 2010 is second hottest, and 1998 is third. Considering that 2010 was not an El Nino year, that's pretty concerning.

Man contributes only 4% of CO2? Industrial CO2 emissions since 1850 have been enough to elevate CO2 from 280 to 430 ppm. the reason it's only 390 ppm is because the rest has dissolved in, and is acidifying, the oceans.

Sure, natural processes emit far more CO2 than manmade processes. What you seem unable to grasp is that natural processes are in BALANCE. That means natural processes ABSORB as much CO2 as they EMIT. The unbalanced CO2 contribution is due to industrial process.

dave :

Tim Lawrence :

11 Mar 2011 6:41:28pm

It looks like the right wing of politics wants to be known as the Polluters Party, only interested in looking after the interests of Big Energy. If the majority of scientific opinion is concerned on climate,surly the Precautionary Principle should apply.

mjinga :

15 Mar 2011 6:47:00pm

The majority of earth science opinion, which deals in the record of past climate in the rocks, not models based on assumptions based on very complex attempts to predict what climate might do, agrees that climate changes regardless of what we humans do, and always has.

Twitter

About the Editor

Sara Phillips

Sara Phillips has been an environment journalist and editor for eleven years. Learning the trade on environmental trade publications, she went on to be deputy editor of 'Cosmos' magazine and editor of 'G', a green lifestyle magazine. She has won several awards for her work including the 2006 Reuters/IUCN award for excellence in environmental reporting and the 2008 Bell Award for editor of the year.

Subscribe

Receive updates from the ABC Environment website. To subscribe, type your email address into
the field below and click 'Subscribe'.

How Does this Site Work?

This site is where you will find ABC stories, interviews and videos on the subject of Environment. As you browse through the site, the links you follow will take you to stories as they appeared in their original context, whether from ABC News, a TV program or a radio interview. Please enjoy.